Dismissed

Kovvuri Subbi Reddy v. Union Bank of India

DRT17 Feb 2025SA/99/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal-I at Hyderabad dismissed Security Application No. 99 of 2023 as infructuous. The Tribunal held that the original cause of action, arising from notices withdrawn by the bank, did not survive, and the applicant could not amend the application to challenge subsequent fresh notices. An alternative remedy via fresh stipulation was permitted.

What did the court decide?

The second Security Application is dismissed as infructuous. The Respondent Bank may initiate fresh proceedings. Pending applications shall stand disposed.

Kovvuri Subbi Reddy versus Union Bank of India — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS^{RECOVERYTRIBUNAL} -^{I AT HYDERABAD}

¶2

DA.|EDrl*lls-t-HE171|IDAYoFFEBRUARY'2025

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI^{GOPICHAND, PRESIDINGOFFICER}

¶4

sA.No.99,/2c^23

¶5

Sri KovvuriSubbi Reddy, S/o Sri Gangi Reddy, aged 79 years, D.No. 16l A, Mulalanka village, Kalidindi Mandal, Krishna District, A.P.

¶6

... Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Union Bank of India, Bhimavaram branch, D.No.4- 1- I , I lotcl Sarovar Complcx,

¶9

J.P.Road, Bhimavaram District West Godavari, A.P.-534202.

¶10

Sri KudipudiVeeraBrahmam, S/o Sri Krishna Murthy,

¶11

D.No.3-38, MulaIanka(V), Kalidindi Mandal, Krishna District, A.P.

¶12

... Respondents

¶13

Counsel for the Applicant Counselfor 1"t Respondent Bank Respondent No.2

¶14

Sn B. Siniuasa Reddg

¶15

Sri V. Sethumadhaua Rao Sri V. Naga Krishna

¶16

ORDER

¶17

The Applicant filed the present Securitisation Application u/s. lT of the St:curiLization a ction oI Financial Assets and

¶18

Enforcemcnt of sc/icrdif, ,''- ,.rit^{-" '} 2OO2 (SARFAESI Act, 2OO2) challenging the j ,6 Alictionri'N"ti3qil 9.O7.2022 issued by the 1st Respondent Bqn$ fixing the^d-ate of ion on 24.08.2022 against the scheclule properties'!^{7 FEB 2S25} h{ ,}I -\i'5,#, 3.'1}i,r"s6*$97 S,i;ilHllE

¶19

sA99/2023

¶20

The 1"t Respondent. Ilank filed detailed reply resisting the above application.

¶21

During the pendency of the SA, the 1"t Respondent Bank liled a memo stating that they have withdrawn the demand notice, Possession notice and also auction sale notice dt.19.07.2022 fixing the date of auction on 24.08.2022 and accordingly prayed to dismiss the SA as infructuous.

¶22

Ld. courtscl f<>r the Applicant filcd their reply/objections in response to the memo filed by the lst Respondent Bank by contending that subsequent to the withdrawal of the demand notice, possession notice and sale notice by the 1"t Respondent Bank, the Bank has again issued possession notice and sale notice and challenging the said noticcs, the Applicant filed interlocutory applications for amendment of the SA and the said applications are pending and in view of the same, SA is not infructuous.

¶23

Heard both thc Ld. Counsel and perused the material brought on record.

¶24

Now the point that arise for consideration is tahether the sA is liable to be dismissed as infructuous?

¶25

Ld. Co u nsel for the Applicant argued that the as per the interim conditio deposite the 1sr Ii :lil#il# ,,: n;^{1t FEB 2o6} X)i \fu.,#'

¶26

sA99/2023

¶27

7 ' As per the record, it is clear that at the time of granting interim stay, this Tribunal dirccted the Applicant to deposit certain amounts into the loan account with the lst Respondent Bank. so when the Applicant has deposited the said amount into the loan account, the question of directing the 1st Respondent Bank to refund the said amount docs not arise.

¶28

The instant sA is filed basing on the cause of action arouse subsequent to the demand notice and possession notice issued by the 1"t Respondent llank. So, when the 1st Respondent Bank has

¶29

withdrawn thc verysaid demand notice, possession notice and sale notice issued by them, no cause of action survives in the SA and so, the Applicant cannot amend the SA for challenging the fresh notices issued by the Respondent Bank subsequent to filing of SA. In case, the 1st Rcspondent Ilank issues any fresh demand notice, possession notice or salc nol-ice, it is always open for the Applicant to file fresh SA challenging the said notices. Accordingly, the contention of the Applicant that the SA is not infructuous, is untenable.

¶30

So, in view of the circumstances, I am of the opinion that SA99l2023

¶31

is liable to be dismissed as infructuous as no cause of action survives.

¶32

In. the result, sA gg l2o2s is dismissed as infructuous. The Respondent Bank is at liberty to initiate fresh proceedings by following the proccdure contemplated under the provisions of SARFAESI Act,2oo2 against the schedule property. It is always open to the Applicant to chalt""?&* proceedjrrgF in case, there are any

¶33

violations on the ndent'Bank.

¶34

$'
,s'

¶35

Consequentl *he tions, pending if any, shall stand dis

¶36

sA9912023

¶37

communicatc a copy of this order to the parties concerned.

¶38

(Dictated to the Priuate Secretary, transcibed. bg her, corrected., signed. and. pronounced. bg me in the open court on this the I TtncLoA of F.ebruiry, ZOZS1.

¶39

sd/-

¶40

(c. coPrcHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶41

¶42

rRuSoPY
b/
,r#,*?!E'^'

Kovvuri Subbi Reddy v. Union Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kovvuri Subbi Reddy v. Union Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Smt D Geetha Bharath versus Telangana Grameena Bank

Mr Abdul Raheem Mohd versus Iifl Housing Finance Limited

Mr Abdul Hafeez Mohd versus Iifl Housing Finance Limited

State Bank of India versus M/s. Ssr Hospitals

State Bank of India versus M/s. Maruthi Oil Stores and Electrical Parts

Karur Vysya Bank versus M/S. Rishabh Plastic